At 8/30/2013 1:42:12 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:Is it time for the US intervention to take place in Syria? In what way? Economic or military? and how exactly?

IMHO the US should act in a way that promotes their interests, whatever that may entail. If it's economic aid, so be it. If it's military aid, so be it.

The chemical weapons attack does have me wondering though if this is another Gulf of Tonkin-type incident, i.e. a false flag.http://en.wikipedia.org...

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

America will take part in the Syrian conflict. Too many campaign donors are demanding that the government make expensive purchases from them.

The best we can do is to require that these bribes favor more humanitarian corporate givers, and not the war-profiteers.

The US should work with the international community to provide humanitarian relief to the people of Syria. This assistance cannot wait. How it will be delivered is a very difficult decision, and cannot be made without great feats of diplomacy. This diplomacy therefore, should continue (as it has) in earnest.

At 8/30/2013 8:18:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:What we really need to do is threaten economic warfare on russia if they continue to block UN action and prop up syria.

The costs of that wouldn't justify the benefits. What we need to do is try to thaw the political culture of the former USSR, so that they are less paranoid that if people ever rioted in the streets of Moscow, that the US and allied forces wouldn't support those rebels. That's what's at stake here. Putin isn't thinking that he supports what Assad is doing. He's afraid that he's next.

At 8/30/2013 1:42:12 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:Is it time for the US intervention to take place in Syria? In what way? Economic or military? and how exactly?

IMHO the US should act in a way that promotes their interests, whatever that may entail. If it's economic aid, so be it. If it's military aid, so be it.

The chemical weapons attack does have me wondering though if this is another Gulf of Tonkin-type incident, i.e. a false flag.http://en.wikipedia.org...

question is, if it is within the strategic (or tactical) interest for the US to intervene in Syrian conflict.

Politically, there seem to be a lot of gain you can make. Syrian regime is a hostile one anyway, if the rebel fail you will at least weaken your enemy, if they success you will have new potential allied.

Although, economically, it isn't sound feasible and not even worth it if you're stuck in just another prolonged conflict.

At 8/30/2013 1:42:12 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:Is it time for the US intervention to take place in Syria? In what way? Economic or military? and how exactly?

IMHO the US should act in a way that promotes their interests, whatever that may entail. If it's economic aid, so be it. If it's military aid, so be it.

The chemical weapons attack does have me wondering though if this is another Gulf of Tonkin-type incident, i.e. a false flag.http://en.wikipedia.org...

question is, if it is within the strategic (or tactical) interest for the US to intervene in Syrian conflict.

Politically, there seem to be a lot of gain you can make. Syrian regime is a hostile one anyway, if the rebel fail you will at least weaken your enemy, if they success you will have new potential allied.

Although, economically, it isn't sound feasible and not even worth it if you're stuck in just another prolonged conflict.

Definitely strategic, although exactly how is not only rather complicated, but more than likely well beyond my knowledge base to ascertain.

I believe the idea for both America and Russia/China is to prevent a pan-Arab bloc from forming, and to prevent either side from completely co-opting the region. In that sense, the most sensible strategic decision would be to keep the Middle East mired in meaningless sectarian conflicts, Israel being the lightning rod for sparking conflict.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 8/30/2013 8:18:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:What we really need to do is threaten economic warfare on russia if they continue to block UN action and prop up syria.

The costs of that wouldn't justify the benefits. What we need to do is try to thaw the political culture of the former USSR, so that they are less paranoid that if people ever rioted in the streets of Moscow, that the US and allied forces wouldn't support those rebels. That's what's at stake here. Putin isn't thinking that he supports what Assad is doing. He's afraid that he's next.

I think that even if that were true, it's not a justification for Putin propping up Syria or using the UNSC, which is meant to act in cases like this, for Russia's own political gain instead of considering that this is about to dissolve in to another fvcking Rwanda if we don't act soon.

I can't wait for the double standard, if America does act we will be the dirty imperialists getting in everyone's business, if we don't act we'll be viewed as hypocrites for going in to Iraq for oil (supposedly, although that can be disproven as another theory made up by the braindead apologist camp that has not been proven) but not using our power to stop a genocide. If half a million can be killed with machetes and AK's, they can be killed with explosives and chemical weapons.

At 8/30/2013 8:18:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:What we really need to do is threaten economic warfare on russia if they continue to block UN action and prop up syria.

The costs of that wouldn't justify the benefits. What we need to do is try to thaw the political culture of the former USSR, so that they are less paranoid that if people ever rioted in the streets of Moscow, that the US and allied forces wouldn't support those rebels. That's what's at stake here. Putin isn't thinking that he supports what Assad is doing. He's afraid that he's next.

I think that even if that were true, it's not a justification for Putin propping up Syria or using the UNSC, which is meant to act in cases like this, for Russia's own political gain instead of considering that this is about to dissolve in to another fvcking Rwanda if we don't act soon.

Of course there are other reasons (like the fact that Syria is significant customer of the Russian arms industry) -but the ultimate reason is because Putin is afraid that he's next. Here's the situation: there are pro-liberalization rebels in Syria, among other kinds of rebels, who are protesting an oppressive regime. International powers have staked their claims in the outcome of that struggle -notably, the West has sided directly or indirectly with the rebels. Putin then wonders: if Russians stormed the streets of Moscow, would international powers side with them or me? It's very basic.

I can't wait for the double standard, if America does act we will be the dirty imperialists getting in everyone's business, if we don't act we'll be viewed as hypocrites for going in to Iraq for oil (supposedly, although that can be disproven as another theory made up by the braindead apologist camp that has not been proven) but not using our power to stop a genocide. If half a million can be killed with machetes and AK's, they can be killed with explosives and chemical weapons.

I agree that it's a bit arbitrary that the West only threatens military retribution in response to chemical weapons, but you're not seeing this from a Russian perspective. You have to consider the history of the people, the interests of the current leaders and the circumstances under which foreign powers have changed the outcome of civil wars.

At 8/30/2013 8:18:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:What we really need to do is threaten economic warfare on russia if they continue to block UN action and prop up syria.

The costs of that wouldn't justify the benefits. What we need to do is try to thaw the political culture of the former USSR, so that they are less paranoid that if people ever rioted in the streets of Moscow, that the US and allied forces wouldn't support those rebels. That's what's at stake here. Putin isn't thinking that he supports what Assad is doing. He's afraid that he's next.

I think that even if that were true, it's not a justification for Putin propping up Syria or using the UNSC, which is meant to act in cases like this, for Russia's own political gain instead of considering that this is about to dissolve in to another fvcking Rwanda if we don't act soon.

Of course there are other reasons (like the fact that Syria is significant customer of the Russian arms industry) -but the ultimate reason is because Putin is afraid that he's next. Here's the situation: there are pro-liberalization rebels in Syria, among other kinds of rebels, who are protesting an oppressive regime. International powers have staked their claims in the outcome of that struggle -notably, the West has sided directly or indirectly with the rebels. Putin then wonders: if Russians stormed the streets of Moscow, would international powers side with them or me? It's very basic.

But you're also missing my point, International powers hardly took sides, but the US at least, drew a red line where the syrian government could not cross, they more likely than not crossed it, so if we don't at least give them retribution for the chemical weapons, we are seen as weak. The US is in between a rock in a hard place in most foreign policy decisions, I will give Obama that, it's either look weak and indecisive by the conservatives, or look like dirty imperialists to the apologists, he doesn't win either way.

I can't wait for the double standard, if America does act we will be the dirty imperialists getting in everyone's business, if we don't act we'll be viewed as hypocrites for going in to Iraq for oil (supposedly, although that can be disproven as another theory made up by the braindead apologist camp that has not been proven) but not using our power to stop a genocide. If half a million can be killed with machetes and AK's, they can be killed with explosives and chemical weapons.

I agree that it's a bit arbitrary that the West only threatens military retribution in response to chemical weapons, but you're not seeing this from a Russian perspective. You have to consider the history of the people, the interests of the current leaders and the circumstances under which foreign powers have changed the outcome of civil wars.

As much as Putin loves to sabre-rattle so he can look cool to his western hating buddies, and as much as we love to sabre rattle back, we would never take direct action against Russia, Russia is almost like a militaristic curse, an empire could take all of Europe, and then go to Invade russia and fail epicly. I think at the end of the day the current Russian government serves most of our interests, but just likes to sabre-rattle and play both sides of the field so they can bankroll and make it look like they stuck it to the dirty imperialists at the same time.

At 8/30/2013 8:18:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:What we really need to do is threaten economic warfare on russia if they continue to block UN action and prop up syria.

The costs of that wouldn't justify the benefits. What we need to do is try to thaw the political culture of the former USSR, so that they are less paranoid that if people ever rioted in the streets of Moscow, that the US and allied forces wouldn't support those rebels. That's what's at stake here. Putin isn't thinking that he supports what Assad is doing. He's afraid that he's next.

I think that even if that were true, it's not a justification for Putin propping up Syria or using the UNSC, which is meant to act in cases like this, for Russia's own political gain instead of considering that this is about to dissolve in to another fvcking Rwanda if we don't act soon.

Of course there are other reasons (like the fact that Syria is significant customer of the Russian arms industry) -but the ultimate reason is because Putin is afraid that he's next. Here's the situation: there are pro-liberalization rebels in Syria, among other kinds of rebels, who are protesting an oppressive regime. International powers have staked their claims in the outcome of that struggle -notably, the West has sided directly or indirectly with the rebels. Putin then wonders: if Russians stormed the streets of Moscow, would international powers side with them or me? It's very basic.

But you're also missing my point, International powers hardly took sides,

but the US at least, drew a red line where the syrian government could not cross, they more likely than not crossed it, so if we don't at least give them retribution for the chemical weapons, we are seen as weak.

Yup.

The US is in between a rock in a hard place in most foreign policy decisions, I will give Obama that, it's either look weak and indecisive by the conservatives, or look like dirty imperialists to the apologists, he doesn't win either way.

Indeed.

I'm talking about Russia, not the US, though.

I can't wait for the double standard, if America does act we will be the dirty imperialists getting in everyone's business, if we don't act we'll be viewed as hypocrites for going in to Iraq for oil (supposedly, although that can be disproven as another theory made up by the braindead apologist camp that has not been proven) but not using our power to stop a genocide. If half a million can be killed with machetes and AK's, they can be killed with explosives and chemical weapons.

I agree that it's a bit arbitrary that the West only threatens military retribution in response to chemical weapons, but you're not seeing this from a Russian perspective. You have to consider the history of the people, the interests of the current leaders and the circumstances under which foreign powers have changed the outcome of civil wars.

As much as Putin loves to sabre-rattle so he can look cool to his western hating buddies, and as much as we love to sabre rattle back, we would never take direct action against Russia,

Well, we could, it just would end badly for everyone.

Russia is almost like a militaristic curse, an empire could take all of Europe, and then go to Invade russia and fail epicly.

One does not have to stage a land invasion to arm prospective rebels in Moscow.

I think at the end of the day the current Russian government serves most of our interests,

Except for those pesky UNSC vetoes, right?

but just likes to sabre-rattle and play both sides of the field so they can bankroll and make it look like they stuck it to the dirty imperialists at the same time.

The US and its allies should humanitarian aid to the Syrian people whether they support the regime.When it comes to a military strike, the US and mainly Britain and France should consider the outcome of the strike and whether the regime will strike back at Israel which could lead to a regional war.Thus, bombing Syria even if it's for a couple of days is too risky.I advise the US to make sure the regime used the chemical weapons against its own people or it's just a false flag.Many reports claim that rebels used them.I can post sources if needed.Any strike on Syria should be backed by the international community, other than that it's another violation of the international law.

At 8/30/2013 8:18:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:What we really need to do is threaten economic warfare on russia if they continue to block UN action and prop up syria.

The costs of that wouldn't justify the benefits. What we need to do is try to thaw the political culture of the former USSR, so that they are less paranoid that if people ever rioted in the streets of Moscow, that the US and allied forces wouldn't support those rebels. That's what's at stake here. Putin isn't thinking that he supports what Assad is doing. He's afraid that he's next.

This is only half right. Putin isn't afraid the U.S. will intervene in Moscow, he is afraid of international consensus demanding domestic reform in Russia. What China and Russia are afraid of is unchecked Western intervention in the domestic affairs of foreign countries. This threatens their ability to run their countries as they see fit AND it threatens their ability to maintain regional influence.

Russia also has a major military base in Syria and strong economic ties to Syria. This is why Russia props up the Assad regime. No amount of "thawing" of Russian politics will change Russia's desire to keep the U.S. out of regions of strategic interest.

So Putin doesn't think he's next, he just sees the issue as one that jeopardizes his strategic interests.

At 8/30/2013 8:18:25 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:What we really need to do is threaten economic warfare on russia if they continue to block UN action and prop up syria.

The costs of that wouldn't justify the benefits. What we need to do is try to thaw the political culture of the former USSR, so that they are less paranoid that if people ever rioted in the streets of Moscow, that the US and allied forces wouldn't support those rebels. That's what's at stake here. Putin isn't thinking that he supports what Assad is doing. He's afraid that he's next.

This is only half right.

Indeed, perhaps I wasn't clear. In saying that Putin is afraid that he's next, what I was indicating was that if there ever were to be protests in Moscow like those which started against the Assad regime in 2011 with the Arab Spring, Putin's concern is that the United States and other powers would intervene by in any way supporting rebels. The Chinese have the same concern.

Putin isn't afraid the U.S. will intervene in Moscow, he is afraid of international consensus demanding domestic reform in Russia. What China and Russia are afraid of is unchecked Western intervention in the domestic affairs of foreign countries. This threatens their ability to run their countries as they see fit AND it threatens their ability to maintain regional influence.

More or less you're right. I mean, it's more complicated than that, but you're basically on point.

Russia also has a major military base in Syria and strong economic ties to Syria. This is why Russia props up the Assad regime. No amount of "thawing" of Russian politics will change Russia's desire to keep the U.S. out of regions of strategic interest.

So, recognize that you're talking about two different, distinct things. The economic ties are important, largely because of munitions contracts, natural resources, etc. but it's not as if Russia would be unable to sell their guns/etc. if the Assad regime were to fall. It would be inconvenient, and the Russian business interests that incestously find their way into influencing Russian politics definitely have enough influence to get the Russian government to adopt or maintain certain international policies conducive to those interests, but this is far more than just about money. It's about power and sovereignty.

So Putin doesn't think he's next, he just sees the issue as one that jeopardizes his strategic interests.

I think there was some confusion, largely because I wasn't clear, as to what I meant when I said "Putin thinks he's next." I think that's resolved now.

Russia also has a major military base in Syria and strong economic ties to Syria. This is why Russia props up the Assad regime. No amount of "thawing" of Russian politics will change Russia's desire to keep the U.S. out of regions of strategic interest.

So, recognize that you're talking about two different, distinct things. The economic ties are important, largely because of munitions contracts, natural resources, etc. but it's not as if Russia would be unable to sell their guns/etc. if the Assad regime were to fall. It would be inconvenient, and the Russian business interests that incestously find their way into influencing Russian politics definitely have enough influence to get the Russian government to adopt or maintain certain international policies conducive to those interests, but this is far more than just about money. It's about power and sovereignty.

They are two different things, but definitely related. Russia has multiple interests in Syria. Also, it may very well be the case that regime change would hurt economic relations. The country could destabilize, the rebels could be more friendly to other powers, there are a lot of unknowns that Russia wants to avoid.

Also, you left out the Russian naval base in Syria as a point of Russian interest.

Russia also has a major military base in Syria and strong economic ties to Syria. This is why Russia props up the Assad regime. No amount of "thawing" of Russian politics will change Russia's desire to keep the U.S. out of regions of strategic interest.

So, recognize that you're talking about two different, distinct things. The economic ties are important, largely because of munitions contracts, natural resources, etc. but it's not as if Russia would be unable to sell their guns/etc. if the Assad regime were to fall. It would be inconvenient, and the Russian business interests that incestously find their way into influencing Russian politics definitely have enough influence to get the Russian government to adopt or maintain certain international policies conducive to those interests, but this is far more than just about money. It's about power and sovereignty.

They are two different things, but definitely related. Russia has multiple interests in Syria. Also, it may very well be the case that regime change would hurt economic relations.

I'm not disputing that, because obviously you're right. I'm taking issue with the order in which you're ranking concerns such that you are assuming that economic concerns are coming before political concerns. I'm saying that political concerns take precedence, even though economic concerns have political impacts.

The country could destabilize, the rebels could be more friendly to other powers, there are a lot of unknowns that Russia wants to avoid.

Yup.

Also, you left out the Russian naval base in Syria as a point of Russian interest.

It's important, sure, but it didn't occur to me last night. But you're right that Russia has, historically, placed considerable emphasis on maintaining/expanding shoreline access.

But I think we substantially agree on this issue...

We do, more or less, with the difference being the order in which we think Russia is ordering its interests.

MOSCOW " Russia dramatically escalated its denunciations of American threats to attack Syrian military targets on Saturday, as President Vladimir Putin called the arguments about chemical weapons that underlie the U.S. case "utter nonsense."

The Foreign Ministry said a U.S. attack would be a "gross violation" of international law.

Speaking out for the first time since an alleged chemical weapons attack near Damascus on Aug. 21, Putin called on President Obama to find a nonviolent way out of the crisis.

"I would like to address Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate: Before using force in Syria, it would be good to think about future casualties," Putin told Russian news agencies in Vladivostok during a tour of the country"s flood-stricken Far East.

"Russia is urging you to think twice before making a decision on an operation in Syria," he said.

Next week"s Group of 20 economic summit in St. Petersburg would be a good forum for discussing the Syrian issue, he said, "so why not take advantage of it?"

The White House argued Friday that intelligence shows more than 1,400 people died from exposure to chemical weapons in an attack carried out by the Syrian military.

Putin said he was sure the attack was the work of rebels trying to provoke international " and especially American " involvement in the Syrian conflict. The regime of Bashar al-Assad, he said, would have had no reason to use chemical weapons at a time when it had gained the upper hand in the fighting.

"While the Syrian army is on the offensive, saying that it is the Syrian government that used chemical weapons is utter nonsense," Putin said.

On top of that, he said, the Obama administration"s "claims that proof exists, but is classified and cannot be presented to anybody, are below criticism. This is plain disrespect for their partners."

Putin"s comments were soon underlined by a stern statement from the Foreign Ministry. After U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul had finished a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Saturday, the ministry declared, "Russia has expressed its conviction that any forceful action against Syria that the U.S. could carry out in circumvention of the U.N. Security Council would be an act of aggression and a gross violation of international law."

Putin said he and Obama have not discussed Syria since the incident occurred.

"The U.S. president and I certainly discussed this problem at the G8" summit in June in Northern Ireland, he said. "And, by the way, we agreed then that we would jointly facilitate peace negotiations in Geneva, and the Americans committed themselves to bringing the armed opposition to these negotiations. I understand this is a difficult process, and it looks like they haven't succeeded in this."

Putin said he was surprised by the vote in Britain"s Parliament on Thursday not to join a U.S. attack on Syrian military targets. "It shows that there are people guided by common sense there," he said.

The Russian president is fond of needling his opponents, often adopting a tone of apparent reasonableness tinged with a considerable amount of condescension. A U.S. assault on Assad"s regime would do nothing to hurt his standing, at home or in many countries abroad, where his contempt for Washington tends to play very well.

Obama arrives in St. Petersburg for the G20 meeting on Thursday and leaves on Friday. The purpose of the gathering is to discuss economic growth, but the White House acknowledges there will be plenty of conversation about Syria on the side. There are currently no plans for a one-on-one meeting between Putin and Obama, who earlier this month decided not to attend a Moscow summit with the Russian president.

On Friday, the head of the foreign affairs committee of the lower house of parliament, Alexei Pushkov, said the Nobel committee should strip Obama of his 2009 Peace Prize if he launches an attack on Syria.